Zooville 2020 Study is in Peer-Review and has been released.

ZTHorse

Administrator
Staff member
The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by

Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology

Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.

Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021

"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "

This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.

Deepest regards,

ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org

The link is here:

 

ADreamOfLiberty

ZooVille Philanthropist
Page 21 said:
That is, zoophilia indicates a higher likelihood of furryism, however, furryism does not necessarily entail a greater likelihood of zoophilia.
....that doesn't seem mathematically possible. If the furry group is far larger than the zoosexual group then furry may not entail a significantly higher likelihood of zoosexuality but it is still higher than in general population.

I don't think the furry group is that much larger. Maybe 2-3x at most, and realistically if zoosexuality was treated like transgenderism (education and encouragement from prepubescence) it would be more like 10% of furries aren't zoos.
 

shortbutfast

Zooville Settler
....that doesn't seem mathematically possible. If the furry group is far larger than the zoosexual group then furry may not entail a significantly higher likelihood of zoosexuality but it is still higher than in general population.

I don't think the furry group is that much larger. Maybe 2-3x at most, and realistically if zoosexuality was treated like transgenderism (education and encouragement from prepubescence) it would be more like 10% of furries aren't zoos.
Well, that's just speculation as posted here. Of course, the aim of this study wasn't to compare those with self-identified paraphilias against those without any self-identified paraphilias, it was to identify correlations between SIA-RA indicators and the discussed self-identified paraphilias.

With n=1222-1228 (with 700 something discarded due to incomplete data) and p=0.001 (very significant), the correlations found are absolutely statistically relevant. Remember that confirmation bias is a real thing that **every single human being** has and cannot be rid of, hence the importance of the data validation and statistical relevance I mentioned previously.

edit: to be clear, I am not saying that there is without a doubt no correlation between self-identified furries and zoophilic desires or that the rate of those with zoophilic desires within a solely self-identified furry population is not higher than the base rate of zoophilic-urges in non self-identified furries, I am saying that within this population sampled the papers findings are accurate, relevant and true.

The fact is that that data just doesn't exist in the fashion discussed here, with a nuanced breakdown of the sub-paraphilias and the SIA-RA indicators correlations, for the 'regular' non furry, non zoophile population.
 
Last edited:

ADreamOfLiberty

ZooVille Philanthropist
edit: to be clear, I am not saying that there is without a doubt no correlation between self-identified furries and zoophilic desires or that the rate of those with zoophilic desires within a solely self-identified furry population is not higher than the base rate of zoophilic-urges in non self-identified furries, I am saying that within this population sampled the papers findings are accurate, relevant and true.

The fact is that that data just doesn't exist in the fashion discussed here, with a nuanced breakdown of the sub-paraphilias and the SIA-RA indicators correlations, for the 'regular' non furry, non zoophile population.
One doesn't need the data, the sentence appears to assert a one way correlation and that is not coherent.

If you have populations (A) 10,000, (B) 1000, (C) 100. A contains B and C. C and B may overlap or they may not. Obviously B is 10 times larger than C.

If B and C don't overlap that is perfect negative correlation, being in B means you are not C, being C means you are not B.

C cannot contain B but B can contain C. If B contains C then being C implies you are B (100% chance), but there is only a 10% chance that a randomly selected B is C. This is maximum positive correlation between different sized groups. In this case being B entails a significantly higher likelihood of being C than the likelihood of being C in the general population (A). To put numbers to that a randomly selected B has a 10% chance of being C, but a randomly selected A has a 1% chance of being C.

One last point of interest is zero correlation. Zero correlation is when knowing that someone is B does not help you predict whether they are C or not. That occurs when the overlap between B and C has the exact same ratio to B as the overlap between C and A. Obviously C is contained in A so the ratio is 100:10,000 = 1:100, which is just a restatement of the 1% chance of A being C.

The zero correlation overlap between B and C is thus 10:1000 = 1:100, that is only 10 people are both C and B. There is a 1% chance that a B is a C and a 1% chance that an A is a C. What about from C to B? 10/100 Cs are Bs so there is a 10% chance that a random C is a B, and in the general population there is a 10% chance of being a B.

All other possibilities exist on a continuum between these three scenarios.

Now let's put some words to the letters.
A = general population
B = furies
C = zoos

The quote was:
That is, zoophilia indicates a higher likelihood of furryism, however, furryism does not necessarily entail a greater likelihood of zoophilia.

Translated to variables:
That is, C indicates a higher likelihood of B, however, B does not necessarily entail a greater likelihood of C.

Note that "greater likelihood" is in reference to the likelihood of being zoo or furry in general i.e. for the general population.

If "C indicates a higher likelihood of B" then C is positively correlated with B, which is to say the overlap between B and C relative to A is greater than the ratio between B and A.

Let the likelihood of being a furry = X. Let the likelihood of being a zoo = Y.
The likelihood of a furry being zoo = Xy. The likelihood of a zoo being a furry = Yx.

Zero correlation between furies and zoos implies: Xy = Y and Yx = X.
Negative correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy < Y and Yx < X.
Positive correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy > Y and Yx > X.

The claim of the quoted statement is: Yx > X, but Xy <= Y. This cannot be as illustrated above. You can have positive correlation or negative correlation or no correlation but you can't have more than one at the same time.

I don't know if anyone has done this poll but it seems like maybe half of zoos would self-ID as furry. I would, with the caveat of complaining that the definition is very loose. Half the general population is not furry. That's positive correlation. Now if the furry group is significantly larger than the zoo group we could be talking insignificant changes in likelihood, but it probably isn't. Let me throw some ballpark figures for example:

Yx = 0.5 [what I just asserted]
Y = 0.005 [Kinsey study said 2% I think probably an overestimate; 0.5% is a nice conservative number]

Now we just need and X, not so easy I found some numbers after a search but they're probably wrong like ~60,000 total. The prevalence of zoosexuality is of course global being an artifact of humanity living in a world with non-humans which is a lot more universal than people brought up on animated anthro animal movies who have access to the internet and can go to conventions in the western world. If you start to count anthro gods, legends, or talking animals in oral tradition you have an argument for a more universal definition of "furry".

So let's pretend that we're only talking about 1st world countries with the appropriate generation for maximum furiness and assert X = 8%. I think it would be fairish to say that 8% of say a modern college campus has some furiness going on.

So:
Y = 0.005
X = 0.08
Yx = 0.5
Xy = Yx * total zoos / total furies = Yx * Y*A / X * A = Yx * Y / X = 0.5 * 0.005/0.08 = 0.03125

Which is to say a furry would have a 3.1% chance of being a zoo while the general public has a 0.5% chance of being a zoo. Or in other words furies are 6x more likely to be zoos than the general population.
 

shortbutfast

Zooville Settler
One doesn't need the data
Considering this is a statistical inquiry yes, one does need the data. I suggest acquainting yourself with the concept of a p-value and a correlation matrix in particular before completely disregarding said data.

 

ADreamOfLiberty

ZooVille Philanthropist
Considering this is a statistical inquiry yes, one does need the data. I suggest acquainting yourself with the concept of a p-value and a correlation matrix in particular before completely disregarding said data.

You have no idea what I was saying.
 

LustyGSD

Tourist
....that doesn't seem mathematically possible. If the furry group is far larger than the zoosexual group then furry may not entail a significantly higher likelihood of zoosexuality but it is still higher than in general population.

I don't think the furry group is that much larger. Maybe 2-3x at most, and realistically if zoosexuality was treated like transgenderism (education and encouragement from prepubescence) it would be more like 10% of furries aren't zoos.
Furries are zoo's not all they way out of the closet.
 

ADreamOfLiberty

ZooVille Philanthropist
Furries are zoo's not all they way out of the closet.
I wouldn't go that far, but that's a lot closer to the truth than furries who go "these are completely separate with nothing in common, don't even dare to compare."

I was called an "extreme furry" by somebody on debate.org [and they were referring to zoosexuality, which was explicitly what I was defending].

It is fun in a devilish grin sort of way to get an anti-zoo furry to try and draw a moral line, they often back themselves into a corner of relying on a secret complex telepathic language for every species except human. That or they setup a "fantasy" where a "feral" consents and then freak out when you show them how intelligent the "real ferals" are.
 

Conrad9163

Tourist
The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by

Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology

Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.

Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021

"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "

This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.

Deepest regards,

ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org

The link is here:



I am unsure how well this will go many other have tried this and given up
With speculation of many groups and defame.
Dr. Damian Sendler and his study once wrote me when I aplied to his article on zoofilia and canadates for study. He said the 20th century is not ready to understand so careful with who u share information reguarding study to he stoped mid study. For any one to understand zoo they need to stop shaking our hands then refering to us as criminals who need help as a excuse to make the study ok.I often wish I could like pepole and be atracted so if they come up with a fix maby life won't be as lonley :) but for now I'm born who I am. What they need is answers and the ability to help others vs hate perhaps a solution and stop refering to us as mentialy ill we are logical. There is many of us the question is why. It's definitely not a fetish for some wer born with this in our DNA right from day 1.Why is a wolf undomesticated or a female not a man. Perhaps the answer of zoo lay in ancestors evolution and DNA.lets face it we don't have the answer of eternal life, whare u go in the after life or what made a zoo lol but we can acept it has a right to exist.Added picture is the public information bio of the PHD
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20211023-202403_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20211023-202403_Chrome.jpg
    383.7 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:

WarHorse

Tourist
Mostly I just check the horses over in case they have boo-boos, and scrub the water troughs. Pick out the run-in sheds and make certain the fences are intact.

It looks to me like there are a couple or three people in this thread who are need of a serious fuck. By whatever species.

But I don't have a college edgy-cation.
 

shortbutfast

Zooville Settler
Mostly I just check the horses over in case they have boo-boos, and scrub the water troughs. Pick out the run-in sheds and make certain the fences are intact.

It looks to me like there are a couple or three people in this thread who are need of a serious fuck. By whatever species.

the commitment and responsibility of being a horse owner, by my reckoning, is much heavier than, say, normal ol straight marriage lol. props. i also dont have a piece of paper with words on it, and am absolutely in need of a fuck, if that's you offerin up public service all selfless like. ;P
 
Top